A senator introduced legislation to stop this. It passed the Michigan Senate so far:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/11/28/michigan-senator-tom-casperson-tree-regulation/2142217002/?fbclid=IwAR20W5KNBlLd7xU25MRB5NiOf2rcEuVxRkAblCs-dbHu8Ep8tof02gMXk3I
Cities complain it strips too much local control since it could eliminate all tree ordinances.

Good News🙂
Council is starting to pull back. They’re delaying the second reading after getting a ton of angry emails from residents. I’m not sure what will become of it, but so far it’s a better result than the other communities who already opted out.

I don't disagree about the market changes and what you said about the CAFE standards. But the tariffs are hugely disruptive and impact the most profitable vehicles. Then there's the uncertainty surrounding them too. Perhaps they'll get worse depending on how the President is feeling on a particular day.
I feel like I'm in bizzaro world seeing tariffs defended on Ron Paul Forums.

Nothing to do with this?
A sudden $1 billion in annual costs is going to prompt drastic action sooner rather than later.
But I guess Trump will fix it with more tariffs or something.
1067791101782831104

They seem to think cities will get very little so it's not worth the risk. I think it's a combination of NIMBY and the fact Council tends to just do whatever city staff tells them to.
The point I've been making is voters decided to regulate marijuana like alcohol. The city had 10 years to "opt-in" to allow medical marijuana facilities, but did nothing. So voters took up Prop 1 to allow it across the board, but now municipalities are just outright banning them. I think if they enact the ban it will go to a voter referendum--there is a lot of resident support to allow this including from entrepreneurs.

What's funny is one long-time councilman did a hit and run after drinking at an alcoholic establishment in the city earlier in the year. He resigned. Shockingly, no one on Council made a push to ban alcohol in the city. :eek:

There's two adjacent cities I could see allowing this; Southfield and Oak Park. I don't know if they opted out yet. If they opened shops across the street (which are already commercially zoned), my city would get all of the perceived "negative" impact (Traffic, "transients", smells) and none of the benefits. It's one argument I'm trying.
The ordinance ban isn't final yet since there's still a second reading.

So I have the ear of one of the Councilmembers. We don't agree on everything but we do talk frequently on city matters and this is one of them. His main reason for the ban is that it's against federal law even though he personally opposes prohibition. I told him he took an oath to uphold the US and Michigan Constitutions--not the federal laws. No one in the city can enforce federal drug laws.
What's the best argument to persuade someone with this position?